This is factually untrue. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36612308 Wales voted by a 52.5% to 47.5% margin to leave. There are very few countries in the world where a non-binding referendum with that kind of margin would be considered a mandate to make a fundamental change to the constitutional basis of the country.
So they voted to leave by a bigger margin than the UK as a whole did then.
Correct, a narrowly bigger margin.
I think if '52-48' is redefined as a 'big margin' then it becomes very hard to define 'a narrow margin' without running into the impact of statistical noise.
Not to mention the majority of people reading HN are in favorable economic situations, so will be among the least effected if/when shit hits the fan. That said there is a large opportunity for change post EU if we go after it. Unfortunately that would require strong unified leadership from the left / non-tories.
Where did you get data on the economic situation of HN readers?
The assumption that most of us work in technology, likely software engineers or closely related roles, combined with the fact that the average compensation for those roles is above average compared to most jobs and most employers in those areas are fairly international so less effected by local politics, compared to other uk centric companies.
Are British HN'ers taking any mitigating steps due to this whole situation? I'm currently in the process of incorporating in the Netherlands, and it turns out setting up a Ltd is a lot more expensive over there than in the UK. I just don't feel that the UK will make good use of my tax receipts any more, so I'm almost obligated to take my work elsewhere.
To be honest - one of the most disheartening parts of this experience is the lack of coherent opposition to the process being carried out. It's like we've moved quickly from a slender majority in a doubtful referendum to an almost entire acceptance that the consequence must be the 'hard' brexit narrative. The only voices actively trying to counter that are former prime ministers (sorry Tony - right message, really re…
Would you ask the same question if the "slender majority" was in your favour? If the referendum yielded a remain vote, would you accept people saying "hang on this margin was really slim, why are we accepting this and why aren't we opposing remaining?"
The fact of the matter is this - a referendum was held with the pre-agreed rule that what the majority decided would happen, and the majority of voters voted to leave the EU. So thats what needs to be done, regardless of how "slender" the margin was. All of this talk of "opposition" to Brexit just shows how many people really don't get why the vote happened as it did.
Uh, Britain organised a full blown referendum for Scotland after Scots voted a separatist party into their own local Parliament ... a referendum the nationalists then lost. Now perhaps there'll even be a second, despite said nationalists saying it would be a "once in a generation" event. How is that being dragged, kicking and screaming?
When the majority of Scotland wanted to remain part of the EU, the terms changed. The fact is Scotland, NI and Wales largely wanted to remain whilst England drags the rest along with. They have no choice. That's a pretty big change in the game and wasn't really on people's minds in 2014. I certainly wasn't thinking about the EU exit in 2014. In fact, in 2015, a 2016 EU referendum wasn't widespread knowledge. In fact,…
> The fact is Scotland, NI and Wales largely wanted to remain whilst England drags the rest along with.
Scotland and NI wanted to stay by large margins, England and Wales to leave by much smaller margins. Were a majority of the four required to pass the referendum, it would have failed on a 2-2 tie.
What exactly would you expect to change when nothing has actually changed yet? What you're saying is as disingenuous as me saying that since all the horrible things people are afraid Trump didn't happy after the election before he came to power there was nothing to worry about.
> What exactly would you expect to change when nothing has actually changed yet? This is my view point: Reputable well known economists and analysts: "If the UK votes to leave then the UK will suffer great economic consequences. As soon as in the 3rd and 4th quarter of 2016 the UK will see a recession which will continue into 2017, 2018, ..." A few months later the same people: "OK, 2016 was actually quite solid, but…
As we are all guessing what might be: How about - Brexit as a stunning own-goal. The english can take their ball but the game will go on. Germany now the biggest contributer to the EU have unprecedented leverage in a lopsided eurocentric parliament over the other states including France (beneficiary) to forge a new closer, more centralised Europe solving many of the issues of the old. They must be rubbing their hands with glee. They folded! They walked away! New treaties are signed. There is no deal with Britain and no compromise. The time expired and they come back empty handed, a hard Brexit on the terms of the old treaties. No more pesky englanders to thwart every move to a superstate with a market of 650+ million people. When Europe speaks old allies of Britannia will heed and shrug their shoulders at their erstwhile master. Power and influence will drain as Britain becomes a poundshop, surrounded by EU states, international flights flying overhead. Shannon will become the US-Europe air hub Heathrow's new runways now unused car lots. Money will flow outwards from the City to Berlin the centre of the new Europe. The best minds will simply follow the money and leave the doomed vessel. Europe will use their sheer weight against the rump state at every turn until one day cap in hand it will return, new capital - Edinburgh... or it might work out great.
> It is rare that a member of the Lords is in the Cabinet As GP noted, it is always the case that at least one member of the Lords is in the cabinet, so not rare at all. More broadly, there have typically been 1-2 Lords in cabinet in most governments of the past several decades (not counting the Leader of the Lords and, before 2005, Lord Chancellor, who always are/were cabinet ministers and members of the Lords.) Joh…
Ok you're right, I meant aside from the Leader of the Lords. Nevertheless, having one or two Lords in the Cabinet out of 22 hardly invalidates my original point that it's an elected (by the people) executive.
How many Brits voted for Theresa May?
(If you don't want to look it up, she got about .12% of the popular vote.)
Ok amendments as well as veto, but I think you see the point. It is rare that a member of the Lords is in the Cabinet and it seems reasonable that the Leader of the Lords is from the Lords doesn't it? Again the main point I'm trying to make is that the EU falls short of typical democratic standards which is a reasonably direct connection between the ruled and the rulers. Anything in between is highly subject to crony…
> It is rare that a member of the Lords is in the Cabinet and it seems reasonable that the Leader of the Lords is from the Lords doesn't it? I was just fighting literalism with literalism; you and I both know that this isn't what's usually meant when talking about "unelected bureaucrats" (keep also in mind that most prominent MPs are in safe seats where, as the saying goes, you could get a donkey elected on a party t…
If you look at your description all the methods of selection bar one are nothing like methods for publicly elected officials and as such massively subject to cronyism. This is worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission#Appointmen...
The one that isn't is the European Parliament which as we've already established is pretty toothless.
On a slight tangent you'll also notice that none of these bodies are s/elected with any commonality of purpose. Hence why IMO the EU struggles to agree on any difficult issues. Just wait and see how much indecision and infighting will occur over Brexit negotiations.
Why on earth would we give up a successfully evolved system of government for this?
What's at stake here is more fundamental than federalism: it's self determination. Throughout history, discrete groups have waged wars of independence to ensure that they can have a government that reflects their shared history, culture, and values. My family is from Bangladesh, which fought a war to separate from Pakistan over cultural/linguistic differences. In another example, Israel is engaged in an existential b…
Yes, humans are inclined to form tribes and to fear the other, just like our primitive ancestors. It's little reason to justify such division today, and especially not to participate in mass murder to achieve it.
Fortunately, while Brexit may be "forming tribes" and "creating division", it seems unlikely to involve participation in mass murder.
Ok you're right, I meant aside from the Leader of the Lords. Nevertheless, having one or two Lords in the Cabinet out of 22 hardly invalidates my original point that it's an elected (by the people) executive.
Its an indirectly elected chief executive and an appointed cabinet drawn largely from, and confirmed by, parliament, in practice. (In theory, they're all appointed by the monarch, but the traditional constraints on that make it a ministerial rather than discretionary act in practice.)
Leaving aside mid term leadership changes as a different can of worms, I think it's pretty clear that the UK public elected the Tories and David Cameron (and it was fairly obvious who his Cabinet would be even if they are not individually elected) on a fairly specific manifesto and with each MP being individually elected (limitations with FPTP notwithstanding).
No such equivalent exists in the EU no matter how hard you try and twist the facts.